Anil Kumar v. State of U.P .and Another). It is also prayed to exempt the

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided as a fresh case.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the part of the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the In- Charge Sessions Judge at Saharanpur arising out of Complaint Case No. 5689 of 2020 under Sections 138 of N.I. Act in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P .and Another). It is also prayed to exempt the applicant from depositing 20% of the total amount, amounting Rs. 8,00,000/- during pendency of present application.

4. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant came to be convicted by the order of the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur dated 14.08.2024 in Complaint Case No. 5689 of 2020 whereby, the applicant was sentenced for imprisonment of three months and to deposit fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- inclusive of Rs. 7,90,000/- payable to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- to the State along with interest.

5. Assailing the conviction order, the applicant preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) with a stay application for staying the conviction sentence and recovery of the fine and on 10.09.2024, the Court of the In-charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur proceeded to stay the conviction sentence and recovery subject to depositing of an amount of 20% of the fine amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

6. Questioning the said order in so far as it directs to depositing 20% of the fine, the present application has been preferred.

7. This Court on 26.05.2025 proceeded to pass the following order: "1. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that against the order dated 14.08.2024 convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant preferred an appeal along with stay application for staying of the application and recovery of the amount and appellate court on 10.09.2024 though enlarged the applicant on bail but required the applicant to deposit 20% of the total amount of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been no consideration of the factors which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial development; 2023 (10) SCC 466 while ascertaining as to whether the case of the applicant falls within the exceptional category or not. Learned counsel for the applicant as per the specific instructions of his client submits that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs by 12.06.2025.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1-State.

4. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

5. Opposite parties shall file their counter affidavit by 04.07.2025. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by 08.07.2025.

6. Put up this case as fresh on 14.07.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by In-charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024, insofar as it directs to applicant to deposit 20% of the fine amount (Rs. 8 lakhs) is stayed, till subject to deposit of 10% of Rs. 8 lakhs by 12.06.2025.

8. In case, the applicant does not submit a proof of such deposit before the court below by 13.06.2025, the interim order stands vacated without any reference to the Bench and the court below shall proceed with the matter."

8. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, is taken on record.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the In-Charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 cannot be sustained so far as it directs for depositing of 20% of the fine as determined by the trial court for the simple reason that the case of the applicant whether it falls under exceptional category or not has not been taken note of and a blanket direction has been issued in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023(10) SCC 466. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has deposited 10% of the amount as ordered by the Court. He submits that the order be set-aside and matter be remitted back to the court below to press a fresh order.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand submit that the sword of conviction is hanging on the neck of the applicant, however they could not dispute the fact that there has been no consideration of the case of the applicant as per the judgement in Jamboo Bhandari (Supra). They submit that since the applicant has deposited 10% of the amount, a direction be issued to the court below to decide the appeal most expeditiously.

11. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

12. Apparently post dishonor of the cheque, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be preferred against the applicant which resulted into conviction by the trial court and on the appeal, the applicant, who was appellant therein was directed to deposit 20% of the fine. In the opinion of the Court, there has been no exercise undertaken by the court below whether the case of the applicant falls under the exceptional category or not. Since the same being so, the order dated 10.09.2024 in so far as it pertains to directing depositing of 20% of the compensation/fine, cannot be sustained. However the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has made a statement as per the instructions from his client that 10% would be suffice. The application is being decided in following terms: (a) The order dated 10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 by In- Charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in so far as it directs depositing of the compensation/fine to the tune of 20% as determined by the trial court is modified to the 10%; (b) Since it is the claim of the applicant that he has deposited the 10% amount and the same has not been disputed by the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, thus it is required of the court below to decide the appeal with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournments and in case adjournments are granted, then the same should be on exceptional circumstances that too not beyond the stretch of 14 days.

13. With the said observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/A. Mandhani ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided as a fresh case.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the part of the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the In- Charge Sessions Judge at Saharanpur arising out of Complaint Case No. 5689 of 2020 under Sections 138 of N.I. Act in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P .and Another). It is also prayed to exempt the applicant from depositing 20% of the total amount, amounting Rs. 8,00,000/- during pendency of present application.

4. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant came to be convicted by the order of the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur dated 14.08.2024 in Complaint Case No. 5689 of 2020 whereby, the applicant was sentenced for imprisonment of three months and to deposit fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- inclusive of Rs. 7,90,000/- payable to the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- to the State along with interest.

5. Assailing the conviction order, the applicant preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) with a stay application for staying the conviction sentence and recovery of the fine and on 10.09.2024, the Court of the In-charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur proceeded to stay the conviction sentence and recovery subject to depositing of an amount of 20% of the fine amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

6. Questioning the said order in so far as it directs to depositing 20% of the fine, the present application has been preferred.

7. This Court on 26.05.2025 proceeded to pass the following order: "1. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that against the order dated 14.08.2024 convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant preferred an appeal along with stay application for staying of the application and recovery of the amount and appellate court on 10.09.2024 though enlarged the applicant on bail but required the applicant to deposit 20% of the total amount of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been no consideration of the factors which have been enumerated in the judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial development; 2023 (10) SCC 466 while ascertaining as to whether the case of the applicant falls within the exceptional category or not. Learned counsel for the applicant as per the specific instructions of his client submits that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs by 12.06.2025.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1-State.

4. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

5. Opposite parties shall file their counter affidavit by 04.07.2025. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by 08.07.2025.

6. Put up this case as fresh on 14.07.2025.

7. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by In-charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024, insofar as it directs to applicant to deposit 20% of the fine amount (Rs. 8 lakhs) is stayed, till subject to deposit of 10% of Rs. 8 lakhs by 12.06.2025.

8. In case, the applicant does not submit a proof of such deposit before the court below by 13.06.2025, the interim order stands vacated without any reference to the Bench and the court below shall proceed with the matter."

8. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, is taken on record.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the In-Charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 cannot be sustained so far as it directs for depositing of 20% of the fine as determined by the trial court for the simple reason that the case of the applicant whether it falls under exceptional category or not has not been taken note of and a blanket direction has been issued in that regard. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2023(10) SCC 466. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has deposited 10% of the amount as ordered by the Court. He submits that the order be set-aside and matter be remitted back to the court below to press a fresh order.

10. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 on the other hand submit that the sword of conviction is hanging on the neck of the applicant, however they could not dispute the fact that there has been no consideration of the case of the applicant as per the judgement in Jamboo Bhandari (Supra). They submit that since the applicant has deposited 10% of the amount, a direction be issued to the court below to decide the appeal most expeditiously.

11. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

12. Apparently post dishonor of the cheque, complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be preferred against the applicant which resulted into conviction by the trial court and on the appeal, the applicant, who was appellant therein was directed to deposit 20% of the fine. In the opinion of the Court, there has been no exercise undertaken by the court below whether the case of the applicant falls under the exceptional category or not. Since the same being so, the order dated 10.09.2024 in so far as it pertains to directing depositing of 20% of the compensation/fine, cannot be sustained. However the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has made a statement as per the instructions from his client that 10% would be suffice. The application is being decided in following terms: (a) The order dated 10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2024 by In- Charge Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in so far as it directs depositing of the compensation/fine to the tune of 20% as determined by the trial court is modified to the 10%; (b) Since it is the claim of the applicant that he has deposited the 10% amount and the same has not been disputed by the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, thus it is required of the court below to decide the appeal with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournments and in case adjournments are granted, then the same should be on exceptional circumstances that too not beyond the stretch of 14 days.

13. With the said observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.8.2025/A. Mandhani ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad